American Colonial Musket... more questions

[Collector]

Photos of this Savannah, GA 'mixed parts' musket previously submitted in the Contemporary Longrifle Collecting forum (Colonial muskets of the AWI) provided information from Mike Brooks, that the trigger guard came from a Belgian or Dutch trade gun ca.1720-1740.  My assumption had always been that this part was of English origin, which, in fact, was wrong.  That reveal now prompts me to try to better identify the other four (4) primary components of this musket: Lock - Front Band - Barrel - Ram rod.

Lock:  Dated 1763, however the engraved name in the rear panel is somewhat obscure.  Can someone positively identify the maker?  'T LORD' - 'C LORD' - 'E LORD' are possibilities.  Was this a trade lock approved for export, or a lock salvaged from an early model Brown Bess?  Savannah and the colony of Georgia were only 30 years old at that date in time.   
 






Front Band:  Obviously French military, but of what year?  Any sight on the rear band has been worn-off, or removed long ago.  I'd assumed that the brazed seam was required to either adapt this part to a .75 British military barrel (the French arm being of .69 caliber), or a later repair.







Barrel:  My notes record it as being a .75 caliber and ~46 inches in length.  My assumption is it British, based on their adherence to the .75 caliber, the ~46 inch length and the 'pinned' barrel lugs which are all 'Brown Bess-ish' features.  The stamps at the breech, are almost if not entirely illegible.  I also assume that the bayonet lug was relocated to the bottom because it would have interfered, at the time, with the sight on the French upper band (now missing entirely).  Is the barrel British?  Can the stamps be better identified?  Was the bayonet lug relocated, or evidence of the barrel being of other foreign origin, like the trigger guard?













Ramrod:  My assumption is that it is a early British Brown Bess steel ramrod.  Or, is it French?  The forged jag on the end of the ramrod I've always assumed was a Colonial modification and/or militia requirement.  Perhaps the shape of the head on the ramrod, even in its present state, can lead to a better identification.  As far as I can tell, the length of the ramrod had not been modified.







While the butt stock appears, to me, to be distinctly British in profile, perhaps if this musket could talk, it might be able to tell me why the gunsmith/armorer/stocker would elect to use the French banded stock design when the barrel already had lugs intended for pinning it to the stock?  In alternative, the lugs, which penetrate the stock web, were skillfully adapted to provide just enough tension against the steel ramrod to very reliably hold it in place.  It appears to be adding unnecessary complication to what are otherwise simple, straight-forward and recognized British musket building techniques of the period - but there it is.







The whole musket is a question, but perhaps a few more of them can find an answer amongst the membership here.

[smart dog]

Hi,
The lug for the bayonet would be on top if it was British and also act as a front sight.  I do not believe the ramrod is British because of the tulip-shaped head.  The lock is likely by Benjamin Lord who made locks for the Irish establishment.  The date on the lock does not necessarily indicate when the musket was made originally as they stored components for years before using them. It is a pattern 1756 lock but Irish made.  The barrel is an enigma. It looks like the decorative molding at the breech was filed away so if it is British, it was altered a lot by a local maker.  The front barrel band appears to me to be someone's attempt to copy bands from French model 1728-1754 muskets. 

dave

[Collector]

An Irish lock - well, I'll be. 

And, the front band isn't French, but someones attempt to copy a French model.

If only the barrel stampings were more legible; however the bayonet lug located on the bottom, does invalidate my assumption and make its origin suspect.  Have to work on that.

The square iron nut under the trigger guard for the tang bolt was, I thought, evidence of a English armorer or gunsmith, as it's the same method employed on a early Brown Bess model, but might just as easily be Irish, as well.   

From the level of workmanship, it's obvious the maker was trained, but he had to have had one heck of a pile of parts lay'n around his shop.  I'd hoped that in better defining the parts, that it would aid in pinpointing its date of manufacture.

Can't describe it as primitive, but it's more of a 'homespun' creation than I originally gave it credit for.

Thanks smartdog!

[conquerordie]

Can't tell by the pics, but do any of the barrel bands have a spring retention? I thought I read somewhere that the French used square holes compared to round holes in the bands for a certain time, then went with a round holes? Do the other barrel bands have retaining holes in them? Or was it made for a friction fit?
All you can say for sure is it's made after the date on the lock, being the latest date on the gun.

[Mike Brooks]

Trigger guard of the type  unmolested. The lock appears to be E LORDS to me. I don't have any sort of list for British lock makers so I'd go with what ever these guys say it is.

[WESTbury]

Per Mowbray & Goldstein's book, The Brown Bess page 74, Benjamin Lord and Francis Lord were on the Irish Establishment. According to Mowbray and Goldstein there is a confirmed 1762 dated lock by Francis Lord.

[Collector]

Can't tell by the pics, but do any of the barrel bands have a spring retention? I thought I read somewhere that the French used square holes compared to round holes in the bands for a certain time, then went with a round holes? Do the other barrel bands have retaining holes in them? Or was it made for a friction fit?
All you can say for sure is it's made after the date on the lock, being the latest date on the gun.

I'm by no means a student of these arms, nor of the components, so I can't address some of your questions.  The 'Crown over the number 3' stamp on the lock interior would signify inspector number 3 *(NOT the 3rd. anniversary of the reign of Britain's King George III which began October 25, 1760), but nothing more definitive than that and as related by member *'smart dog', these locks could have been in storage for years before being used.  So, 1763 to say, 1775 might be reasonable.

NOTE: CORRECTION to 'smart dog' in P1. With my apologies.
NOTE: CORRECTION to 'crown over number 3 stamp' symbol meaning       


The two barrel bands present on this musket are both friction fit.  No barrel band springs were used in this musket's assembly and only the front band evidences a square hole. 








The middle band is fabricated from work hardened (?) copper.  The stock displays a dark shadow and the barrel a dissimilar metals contact reaction, in evidence of the use of this band.  There is no deviation in color, or shape of the 'shadow' on either the wood, or metal, that would indicate another band ever being present.







     


Neither the wood, nor the barrel provide any evidence of a rear band ever being used.




 

[Collector]

Per Mowbray & Goldstein's book, The Brown Bess page 74, Benjamin Lord and Francis Lord were on the Irish Establishment. According to Mowbray and Goldstein there is a confirmed 1762 dated lock by Francis Lord.

Both *'smart dog' and yourself have referenced the 'Irish Establishment' and I have no frame of reference for the term.  Was this a recognized 'Board' or 'Guild' type of organization?  Obviously differentiated from one being noted as 'British', but what was its function?

Given the number of references, it appears the entire 'Lord' family were engaged in the lock making enterprise in Ireland.

Thanks!
 
*NOTE: CORRECTION - to 'smart dog' in P-1.  with my apologies.

[WESTbury]

Gaylord---Just as there was a British Board of Ordnance there was an Irish Board of Ordnance. Both oversaw the manufacture of weapons, those made in Britain and those made in Ireland.

DeWitt Bailey has a chapter covering the Irish Board in his book Small Arms of the British Forces in America.

[smart dog]

Hi,
The British had two government centers of arms making, the Tower of London and Dublin Castle.  Before 1764, many locks were marked with the lock contractor's name and date the lock was made.  In addition, some locks were also marked Tower and the date and Dublin Castle and a date.  After 1764, locks used on British ordnance arms were simply maked Tower or Dublin Castle with no date. The Lord family appear to be lock makers that supplied the arsenal at Dublin Castle in Ireland.  As I wrote previously, the lock is a pattern 1756, which were made between the late 1750s and early 1770s. These were used on the standard pattern 1756 long land muskets, pattern 1757 and 1759 Marine and militia muskets, and the pattern 1769 short land muskets. 

dave

[WESTbury]

Gaylord----Dave has covered the subject with his usual exacting detail and accuracy.

One interesting fact on Irish 1756 Long Land muskets is that, only three have been identified with Irish maker names on the locks, one each by William Powell, James Trulock, and Francis Lord. All are dated 1762.

Per Mowbray and Goldstein's book The Brown Bess, page 75, all three of the Long Lands were issued to the 53rd Regiment of Foot which participated in the campaign that ended with the Battle of Saratoga. All three of these muskets are pictured an covered in detail in Bill Ahearn's book, Muskets of the Revolution. At least one of these had a trumpet shaped ramrod, similar to yours, marked "H2" matching it to the buttplate markings.

[Collector]

Gentlemen,  Based on the tulip head ramrod not being a British convention and there being at least one extant 'artifact' of Irish Establishment origin with a tulip head ramrod, might we loosely assign the ramrod on this musket to being from Ireland?  Or, is that a step too far?

The trigger guard and lock reveals have added substantially to the 'history' embedded in this muskets DNA.

Thank you!

The barrel is going to require more work.  I'll have to pull it out of storage and see if I can get better photos of the breech stampings.

   

[WESTbury]

The 'Crown over the number 3' stamp on the lock interior would signify the 3rd. anniversary of the reign of Britain's King George III which began October 25, 1760 (per Google),

Gaylord---That's interesting, I've never heard that definition of the Crown/ number Inspector stamp before.

I know that you stated the barrel length is the standard 46" overall length, but when you get a chance please confirm that. Also, please measure the length of the lockplate, I'm curious about something related to those three 53 Regt muskets which all had slightly smaller than standard locks.

Those three 53 Regt muskets were on display ay Fort Ticonderoga for many years. I'm pretty sure that Billy pulled his out but I'm not sure if John Ferris yanked his as well.

Thanks---Kent

[smart dog]

Hi,
The crown over "3" just is inspector #3's mark.  It has nothing to do with George's reign. The EG is likely the lock maker while Lord was the contractor supplying the locks.  I wonder if it was one of the Grice family who supplied some locks to the Irish contractors.  The ramrod does look like the odd ball 53rd regiment example in Goldstein and Mowbray's book. 

dave

[WESTbury]

Another point Gaylord, your photo of the lock showing the Crown over Broad Arrow under the pan is just a bit fuzzy, much like my head at times. Would you try to take that photo a second time?

Thanks----- Kent

[Collector]

Gentlemen,

I'll pull this musket out of storage, actually read the manual that came with the camera and see if I can take better photos than the those I currently have in my files.  And, I'll take measurements of the lock and barrel while I'm at it.

I swear I read 'somewhere' that the monarchy crown over a number commemorated the anniversary of a monarch's reign.  Did seem to work out chronologically with George III anyway.  I gladly stand corrected and will amend my previous post accordingly.

Thanks!

Not to mention that early Lancaster piece that member 'Avlrc' has presented (Origin & Info) in this forum, is certainly of more interest.   

[WESTbury]

Lookin' forward to seeing the new photos.

[JV Puleo]

The "crown/3" stamp is an inspector. There is an interesting deposition in the proceedings of the Old Bailey concerning the theft and sale of some Ordnance marked locks from one of the "setters up". The testimony concerns the locks and their markings and the witness testified that he could tell who inspected the lock from the markings...

As to the Irish establishment...legally, until the Act of Union in 1801, Ireland and Britain were separate countries in "personal union" with each other by sharing the same monarch. As a result, most of the offices of state in England were replicated in Ireland. If that sounds confusing, it was then too especially as the British Parliament claimed certain powers over the Irish Parliament...this was often disputed and, for the most part done away with in the 1780s. It was always a messy and complicated relationship.

[Collector]

Lookin' forward to seeing the new photos.

Kent,  Can't find my records and my memory has betrayed me - again.  Updated information and latest attempt at photos.

Barrel:  42-3/16 inches OAL @.75 cal. smooth bore.  Bayonet lug on bottom.



Lock Plate: Height measured at rear of pan @1-1/2 inches - Length @7.0 inches (Steel tape - I should get a larger micrometer)


Length Of Pull:  LOP @12-3/8 inches


Butt Plate:  Height @5.0 inches - Width @2.0 inches






Lock Stamp:






Barrel Stamp: - Note: chalk dust added








Another Barrel Stamp?:  Appears to be a 'Roman Numeral - 'V' or 'X' ??






I needed to take it out and wipe it down with Howard Feed-N-Wax anyway...

[WESTbury]

Thanks for taking all the additional photos and measurements.

The Crown/Broad Arrow on the lockplate does match the same marking on the lockplate shown on page 51 of Bill Ahearn's book, described by Bill as having an "upside down" crown. The barrel to me looks to be from a Long Land and the lack of proofs possibly puts it in the same group of muskets discussed by Ahearn. I would speculate that the bayonet lug was relocated at some point when the barrel was shortened. It was common practice to shorten these barrels when they became worn at the muzzle from the iron ramrod. As mentioned previously, the ramrod is consistent with one presented by Bill on page 51 of his book Muskets of the Revolution. Bill devotes 3 pages of his book to the three 53rd Regt Muskets. Also, they were featured in at least one magazine article and Goldstein & Mowbray's book The Brown Bess.

Hopefully someone else will chime in on this.

[smart dog]

Hi,
I believe the barrel marks are the crude version of government proof marks used on Irish-made barrels.  The little crown and line mark on the lock is actually a crown over an arrow, and is the Irish version of the crown ownership stamp on ordnance guns. I believe the barrel and lock came from a British military musket supplied by Dublin Castle.  I also believe the butt plate is from a Brown Bess musket but reshaped to have a shorter and easier tang to inlet.

dave

[WESTbury]

Dave--I agree with all of your points relative to this musket's components.

From reading through DeWitt Bailey's British Board of Ordnance book, it is pretty clear that in England some of the contractors had the skills to furnish complete muskets. In fact Bailey lists several as suppling "Complete Arms" such as Jordan, Grice, Wilson, and others. To your point about completely finished Irish muskets coming exclusively from Dublin Castle,  I would agree.

I would point out that Complete Arms suppliers such as Grice, Wilson, etc, while capable of making locks and barrels, very probably purchased other small components and stocks from other parts contractors.

Kent